Marlin 336 or Marlin 336XLR?

[MaddSkillz]

Looking for a nice lever gun for the coming rifle deer season here... Been an archery hunter and smoke pole hunter and decided I should try a nice rifle this year... Have only a few days to make my decision...

I was wondering if anyone could comment on whether the XLR is worth it more so than the standard 336? The Marlin XLR is designed to take advantage of the new Leverevolution ammo. The areas I hunt don't offer many long distance shots over 250 yards... 200 yards would be pushing it most of the time. Would the standard 336 in the 30/30 caliber fit this option nicely? The standard 336 has a barrel length of 20 inches while the XLR has a 26 inch barrel.

So, what do you think? Should I spend the extra $100 or is the standard model plenty good for me?

Thanks!

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Perhaps I can take a stab at this question ...... Just get the regular one! The XLR makes little to no sense as it ruins the handiness of the rifle.

 

[woof]

The barrel length and the LR ammo adds very little. Almost all deer are shot under 100 yds. Get closer, buy the 336.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Great! That's what I was hoping to hear actually!

Thanks for the quick reply!

 

[benzy2]

I would go for the standard model. I picked one up at an auction, tossed a small fixed 4x scope on it and I am holding 1-1.5" groups at 100 yards with standard lead round nose bullets. The trigger is extremely crisp and set just right for hunting. It is very handy to carry around and honestly I don't get many shots farther than I feel confident with it. Mine is an older model, presafety. The quality is amazing for the price I paid.

 

[ThomasT]

I've shot my 20" 30-30 at 300 yards at bowling balls and made every shot I took at that range. My buddy was shooting his .270 at the BBalls also. The 30-30 blew off nearly as big of a chunk of the ball as the .270 at that range. He was shooting 150gr bullets and I was shooting 170s.

The regular 20" Marlin is just fine and about half the cost if you buy used.

 

[ArmedBear]

The Hornady ammo is good stuff.

It was, however, developed for a regular 20" rifle anyway.

To me, the point of a lever gun is that it's handy, points well, and offers a quicker followup shot.

For a slow, steady shot at 300 yards, I'd just use a full-size .30-06 bolt action with a scope, not a lever gun with a long barrel.

I can see the point of a long-barreled .45-70, and the stainless rifle with a laminate stock is appealing, but the length of the 336XLR seems to take away more than it adds. The price is unattractive also.

 

[VingThorr]

only get the XLR if you want to hump around all that extra barrel, and you intend to shoot out to 300 yards. otherwise go for the 336! it's an awesome gun!

 

[MaddSkillz]

Wow, everyone agrees! I'll definitely save the money and take ya'll's advice!!! I'll look for a nice used first but since I have a short time to buy it and shoot it before I go, I may have to go with a new one... But heck, it's reasonably priced brand new so all is good!

Thanks!!!

 

[R.W.Dale]

The Hornady ammo is good stuff.

It was, however, developed for a regular 20" rifle anyway.

In that case why is the stuff 113fps slower than advertised in a 20" bbl?

http://www.realguns.com/archives/120.htm

As far as I can tell just about all 30-30 ammo has published ballistics developed in a 24" bbl, personally I like the 24" marlin oven the 20" carbine, I can't for the life of me figure out why american shooters are so infatuated with carbines and scared to death of rifle barrels nowdays

 

[ArmedBear]

I have a 24" .30-06 that will blow any .30-30, with any barrel, out of the water ballistically.

I have nothing against "rifle barrels"; I just can't see any reason to pay extra for a .30-30 lever gun with a long barrel.

If I want a rifle instead of a handy carbine, I'll get a rifle, in a real rifle caliber, not a carbine with a long barrel that gives marginally better performance from a .30-30.

In the woods, who needs a 300 yard .30-30 that hangs up on stuff? A carbine is ideal. In wide open spaces, the bolt gun is totally dominant for good reasons.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I have a 24" .30-06 that will blow any .30-30, with any barrel, out of the water ballistically.

really.... imagine that a 30-06 outperforming 30-30 why isn't this breaking revelation all over the gun rags by now.

In that case why hunt with a 30-30 at all? A 16" 30-06 will still outperform any 30-30 load made by a vast margin.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

In that case why hunt with a 30-30 at all? A 16" 30-06 will still outperform any 30-30 load made by a vast margin.

If feels more traditional? A factor which, of course, is negated in the XLR Marlins.

 

[R.W.Dale]

those long barreled leverguns have been around since Victoria was queen....It don't get much more "traditional" than a 26" levergun with a crescent buttplate

Besides if traditional feel is that important you buy a Winchester not a Marlin

 

[woof]

Why bother with a .30-06 when a .300 Mag will outperform it? Using more gun than needed says more about the user than anything else.

 

[ArmedBear]

Using more gun than needed says more about the user than anything else.

First off, that line has been repeated so much that it just sounds dumb. It is irrelevant, and it's just the flip side of magnumitis. I own no rifles with "magnum" chamberings.

Second, you guys missed my point completely. I like, and own, lever guns.

However, the 336XLR is too much GUN. Not too much cartridge, just not a package that makes sense to me. Where I've wanted a lever gun, in the heavy brush of California, a 24" barrel is a royal PITA, and by no means worth 100 fps or whatever they claim.

In that case why hunt with a 30-30 at all? A 16" 30-06 will still outperform any 30-30 load made by a vast margin.

Because, again, IMO a .30-06 bolt gun is a long-range deer rifle, not a brush gun. I have no desire to have a long-action, short barrel boltie, for a number of reasons. The lever gun -- and the .30-30 round -- make more sense in a carbine.

It's not absolute performance that I'm thinking about.

It's matching the gun and the cartridge to the application.

The .30-30 isn't the best choice if you want to shoot 300+ yards in open country. So why put a long barrel on the thing, in search of a few more FPS? There are many cartridges and guns that work well for those who want or need to shoot farther than a .30-30 is intended for.

The 24" barrel on a lever gun makes no sense to me in choked up, brushy terrain. A 20" barrel will do whatever a .30-30 is best at, anyway. A 24" barrel is mismatched to the gun. Of course it will send lead downrange, but I can't see paying EXTRA for a feature that, for what I care about, actually REDUCES the utility of the rifle. Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it.

If I am going to lug around a long rifle for long-range shooting, the .30-06 will do fine and work better than the .30-30 FOR THAT PURPOSE. I was responding to the assertion that Americans are "afraid of rifle barrels," not saying that the .30-30 isn't a great cartridge for the appropriate applications. It is.

...as is the .30-06, which is serious overkill if you will never see deer more than 50 yards away, and which is mismatched to a 16" carbine -- even more so than the .303 Brit in the Enfield Mk V was.

It's about matching the gun, the cartridge, and the application.

Maybe you should go try to convince a fisherman that a tuna rod should work great for brook trout, and vice versa. That's what I was talking about, not talking up the .30-06 as the be-all, end-all cartridge for everything, everywhere, all the time. It's not. But neither is the .30-30, no matter what barrel you shoot it through.